Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my colleagues from British Columbia to present a petition on behalf of British Columbians who want to protect the waters off the B.C. coast. Basically, they are looking at banning the oil tankers off the pristine and wild B.C. coast so we can protect the environment and businesses along those coastlines.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to introduce a petition signed by over 57,000 people, mostly from British Columbia, who would like to see a permanent legislated ban of oil tanker traffic off B.C.'s north coast.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition from many Manitobans who are concerned with Aveos closing down and the number of important, valuable jobs that are being lost in the province of Manitoba.

The petitioners are calling upon the government and the Prime Minister of this country to hold Air Canada accountable to the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to take Air Canada to court to protect those valuable jobs for the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I join my British Columbian colleagues in being part of the presentation of these 57,000 signatures from people right across British Columbia who have joined together to express to the government that they will be listened to despite the government's efforts to shut down hearings and exclude conversations to those who happen to agree with it, as is too often the case with the Conservative government.

The e petitioners call upon the government to confirm into law that we will have our waters on B.C.'s coast protected for their value, not just for British Columbians but for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to present petitions opposing oil tanker traffic along the coast of British Columbia.

These petitions are signed by the people in the small northern community of Kitwanga in British Columbia.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to pay close attention to evidence presented at the joint review panel, to stop prejudging evidence and to allow British Columbians to speak clearly with one voice that we will not allow pipelines and tankers in our territories.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in relation to the use of security certificates. It deals particularly with today's Federal Court decision and the Court of Appeal ruling that Mohamed Harkat's rights were violated because electronic recordings were made as evidence and they were later destroyed. He had no access to this information. The court also ruled that the use of so-called class privilege for CSIS informers goes too far.

The petitioners, like the Green Party, want the Government of Canada to change these laws in order to protect the rights of those accused to know the case against them. It is fundamental.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to add my voice for this petition, which is to keep tankers out of the wild and pristine coastal waters of British Columbia forever. It has been signed by 57,000 British Columbians from all over British Columbia. I want to thank the Dogwood Initiative for stickhandling this petition.

The petitioners note that the oil tanker ban has been in place since 1972. They call on the government to legislate a ban on oil tanker traffic to protect our coastal waters forever.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table, along with so many of my colleagues, a petition from 57,000 British Columbians who have stood up to say that we have to protect the north coast and legislate a ban on oil tankers to protect our coast forever.

These British Columbians who have wrote and have signed these petitions are from north Vancouver Island, Nanaimo—Alberni, Chilliwack, the North Shore of Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, Richmond and Surrey. They are also from interior communities in place like Kelowna, Prince George and Kamloops.

I now realize that these are communities where the MPs are Conservative. Therefore, we hope the government will listen to those 57,000 British Columbians who ask that it legislate a ban on oil tankers and protect the north coast of British Columbia forever.

Fatemeh Kamkar's application for permanent residency status in Canada was denied on the basis of an unforseeable negative change in her health, which was further impacted by lengthy processing delays, over which she had no control, at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. As a result of the decision, she will have to return to Iran where she has absolutely no family support to assist her in her recovery from breast cancer. It should be noted that following her diagnosis, Ms. Kamkar did not obtain any financial aid for health care from either private or government sources in Canada. Ms. Kamkar has continued to finance her own medical costs.

Ms. Kamkar is currently working on her Ph.D. in neuroscience at the University of Ottawa and is one year away from graduation. The decision of Citizenship and Immigration Canada will deny her the ability to further contribute her knowledge and skills to the medical research community in Canada.

The petitioners ask the minister to reassess Ms. Kamkar's application for permanent residency under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people from Sept-Îles who are strongly opposed to increasing the old age security eligibility age from 65 to 67, as announced in the Conservatives' recent budget.

The petition is entitled “Protecting old age security”. I think the message is rather clear, given that experts agree that the program is sustainable. The petitioners are calling for the old age security program, which goes a long to way to fighting poverty among seniors, to remain intact and unchanged.

What is more, in this petition, the people of Sept-Îles are also asking that the guaranteed income supplement be increased in order to lift our seniors out of poverty, something that is very important to many Canadians, including the people of Sept-Îles.

With regard to questions Q-386 through Q-509 on the Order Paper: (a) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to each question; and (b) what is the estimated cost of the government's response to this question?

Tom LukiwskiConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the government is currently compiling the cost information for producing these responses, some of which were just tabled in the House of Commons on April 23, 2012, and will provide a supplementary response.

With regard to government procurement: (a) what are the particulars of all and any contracts for services provided to government, including all departments, agencies, and crown corporations, since January 1, 2006, by any of the following companies, (i) 3D Contact, (ii) Acrobat Research, (iii) Admin Public Affairs, (iv) ADMM Public Affairs, (v) Alberta Blue, (vi) Canadian Voter Contract, (vii) CFC Voter Contract, (viii) Collect Corp, (ix) CRT Data Systems, (x) Dimark Research, (xi) Direct 2 Client Telesystem, (xii) Electright, (xiii) Feedback Research Corp, (xiv) Front Porch Strategies, (xv) Gillcomm Solutions Centres, (xvi) Global Target Marketing Corp, (xvii) IVRnet, (xviii) J D Web Enterprises, (xix) JMCK Communications, (xx) KLJ Field Services, (xxi) KLR Vu Research, (xxii) Le Groupe CDO, (xxiii) Momentuum or Momentuum BPO or Momentum BPO, (xxiv) Polylogue Research, (xxv) Praxicus Public Strategies, (xxvi) Solus VB, (xxvii) TeleResearch, (xxviii) The Marketing Clinic, (xxix) Total Impact Communications, (xxx) Voicelink, (xxxi) Voter Trac or Voter Track, (xxxii) Western Opinion Research, (xxxiii) Winning Edge Consulting, (xxxiv) Xentel or Xentel DM; and (b) for answers to all sections of (a), (i) what is the time period covered by the contract, (ii) what is the nature or purpose of the service provided, (iii) what was the amount paid to the company for their services, (iv) was the contract awarded through a competitive bidding process or was it sole-sourced, (v) which government department, agency, board, or crown corporation entered into contract with the company, (vi) under which budgetary allocation was the company paid for the service provided, (vii) what is the associated file or reference number for each contract?

With regard to the Atlantic Gateway and Trade Corridor Strategy: (a) what was the total amount approved by Parliament for the Strategy; (b) what Parliamentary votes approved those funds; (c) what is the description, nature, and location of each project approved; (d) what was the approval date of each project; (e) what was, or is anticipated to be, the total cost of each project; (f) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under each respective program; (g) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under any other funding program; (h) who were the funding partners at any other level of government, or the private sector, for each project; (i) what is the expected sunset date of the Strategy; (j) how much funding remains uncommitted; and (k) how much funding, if committed, has not actually been spent?

With regard to the Border Infrastructure Fund: (a) what was the total amount approved by Parliament for the Fund; (b) what Parliamentary votes approved those funds; (c) what is the description, nature, and location of each project approved; (d) what was the approval date of each project; (e) what was, or is anticipated to be, the total cost of each project; (f) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under each respective program; (g) what was the amount allocated by the government for each project under any other funding program; (h) who were the funding partners at any other level of government, or the private sector, for each project; (i) what is the expected sunset date of the Fund; (j) how much funding remains uncommitted; and (k) how much funding, if committed, has not actually been spent?

With regard to ex gratia payments related to the testing of herbicides: (a) what is the total number of applications received by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) since 2007 for the ex gratia payment related to the testing of unregistered United States (US) military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967; (b) how many applications were received each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive; (c) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, what is the number of individuals who received the ex gratia payment; (d) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, what is the number of individuals who were denied the ex gratia payment; (e) for the persons mentioned in subquestion (d), on the basis of what criteria were they denied including (i) medical criteria, (ii) residency criteria, (iii) lack of supporting documentation, (iv) any other issues; (f) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, how many primary caregivers received the ex gratia payment; (g) for each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive, how many primary caregiver applicants were denied the ex gratia payment; (h) how many primary caregivers who applied on behalf of a loved one were denied the ex-gratia payment, prior to the removal on February 6, 2006, of the requirement that the applicant must be alive; (i) out of those primary caregiver applicants originally denied as outlined in subquestion (h), how many subsequently (i) re-applied, (ii) were granted the ex gratia payment; (j) how many individuals who had previously applied for the ex gratia payment but were declined were contacted by VAC to discuss their application after December 22, 2010; (k) how many of the individuals in (j) were granted the ex gratia payment following this contact; (l) how many applications were received between December 22, 2010, and June 30, 2011, inclusive; (m) how many applications were received between June 30 and December 30, 2011, under the delayed/late application policy; (n) how many individuals were awarded compensation under the delayed/late application policy between June 30 and December 30, 2011; (o) what was the total expenditure of ex gratia payments issued under the delayed/late application policy from June 30 to December 30, 2011; (p) how many individuals were denied the ex-gratia payment under the delayed/late application policy from June 30 to December 30, 2011; (q) how many applications have been received by Veterans Affairs Canada after the authority to issue payments expired on December 30, 2011; (r) what is the total amount of money that was allocated for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment over the course of the program since 2007, broken down on an annual basis; (s) how much of the total amount of money allocated for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment since 2007 remained unspent each year from 2007 to 2011 inclusive; (t) if there were unspent funds as described in subquestion (s), for what reasons did funds remain unspent; (u) what is the breakdown of the annual spending by VAC from 2007 to 2011 inclusively as it relates to (i) the Agent Orange ex gratia payment to eligible individuals, (ii) administration costs, (iii) salary costs; (v) does the government have a plan to provide another ex gratia payment or similar program for those Canadians who may develop a medical condition related to the testing of unregistered US military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967; and (w) does the government have any information as to how many Canadians who fell outside of the ex gratia payment timelines may still develop a medical condition related to the testing of unregistered US military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967?